top
Iraq
Iraq
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Wolfowitz Admits Weapons of Mass Destruction Not Main Reason for Iraq War

by www.NewsFromTheFront.org
U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, stated that the decision to highlight Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was done largely for "bureaucratic reasons."
CHICAGO (NFTF.org) -- U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, admitted to the U.S. magazine Vanity Affair that weapons of mass destruction were not the main reason for the U.S.-led attack on Iraq.

In fact, according to Wolfowitz, the purpose of emphasizing weapons of mass destruction as a reason to attack Iraq was because it was "the one reason everyone could agree on." Wolfowitz also stated that the decision to highlight Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was done largely for "bureaucratic reasons."

Despite this, U.S. citizens are unconcerned over Wolfowitz's comments and the failure of the U.S. to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. While at one time U.S. citizens considered weapons of mass destruction to be the most important reason for attacking Iraq, now most of the U.S. population is unconcerned whether Iraq actually has such weapons. As stated in the BBC, "All opinion polls show most Americans are unconcerned about the failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by Brian
I used to think that the Clinton administration was devoid of any semblance of the truth. However, the administration of G.W.Bush is equally devoid of the truth or the ability to recognize it. They have been done in by sorcerey. War is peace.
It is a shame that we support brutal dictatorships, but then again,we are a good model for one. As long as people have money in their pockets nothing will change. The people of the US are like their leaders,without backbone and morality. I guess that makes me a denier of some sort or the other. Sweet!
by free thinker
June 3 2003

The "hoax" brigade conveniently overlooks the fact that Saddam Hussein invited invasion, writes William Safire.

Quick - what was the biggest intelligence misjudgement of Gulf War II? It was the nearly unanimous opinion of the intelligence community, backed by the United States and British military, that 50,000 elite soldiers of Saddam Hussein's well-trained, well-equipped Special Republican Guard would put up a fierce battle for Baghdad.

The US's military plan was based on this cautious assessment. That presumption of a bloody, last-ditch defence was also the basis for objections to the war: in street fighting, opponents argued, casualties would be horrific.

Happily, our best assessment was mistaken. Saddam's supposed diehards cut and ran. Civilians were spared and American losses were even fewer than in Gulf War I.

What if our planners had believed Kurdish leaders who predicted that Saddam's super-loyalists would quickly collapse? We would have sent fewer combat troops and more engineers, civilian administrators and military police.

But the CIA and the Pentagon had no way of being certain that the information about the Republican Guard's poor morale and weak discipline provided by Kurds and Iraqi opposition leaders was accurate. With thousands of lives at stake, optimism was not an option. Sensibly, we based our strategy on the greater likelihood of fierce resistance. That decision was as right when made as it was mistaken in retrospect.


Turn now to the charge heard ever more stridently that US and British leaders, in their eagerness to overthrow Saddam and to turn the tide of terror in the Middle East, "hyped" the intelligence that Iraq possessed germ and poison-gas weapons.

"Hype" means "exaggerate". As used by those who were prepared to let Saddam remain in power, it is prelude to a harsh accusation: "You lied to us. You pretended to have evidence that you never had; you twisted dubious intelligence to suit your imperialistic ends, so we were morally right and you were morally wrong."

Never mind the mass graves now being unearthed of an estimated 300,000 victims which, together with the million deaths in his wars, make Saddam the biggest mass murderer of Muslims in all history. Never mind his undisputed financing of suicide bombers and harbouring of terrorists, from al-Qaeda's Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi to the veteran killer Abu Nidal (the only "suicide" with three bullets in his head, killed in Baghdad probably because he knew too much).

And never mind the US's discovery of two mobile laboratories designed to produce biological and chemical agents capable of causing mass hysteria and death in any city in the world. Future discoveries will be dismissed as "dual use" or planted by us.

Opponents of the removal of this genocidal maniac now accuse George Bush and Tony Blair of a colossal hoax. Because he didn't use germs or gas on our troops, they say, that proves Iraq never had them. If we cannot find them now, they don't exist. They believe Saddam sacrificed tens of billions in oil revenues for no reason at all.

A strong majority of Americans believe he did have a dangerous program running, as he did before. Long before the CIA sent agents to northern Iraq, Kurdish sources were quoted about the terrorist operations of Ansar al-Islam, whose 600 members included about 150 "Afghan Arabs" trained by al-Qaeda; after the belated bombing by the US, some escaped to Iran.

As reassured Iraqi technicians and nurses come forward and as Baathist war criminals seek to save their skins, we will learn much more about Saddam's terrorist connections and his weaponry. It took seven years to catch the Olympic bombing suspect in North Carolina and 18 years to catch the Unabomber; the location of Saddam and Osama bin Laden won't remain a mystery forever.

Meanwhile, as the crowd that bitterly resents the US's mission to root out the sources of terror whips up its intelligence-hoax hype, remember the wise "mistake" we made in overestimating the fighting spirit of Saddam's uniformed bullyboys.

When weighing the murky evidence of an aggressive tyranny's weapons, Bush and Blair were obliged to take no chances. The burden on proof was on Saddam. By his contempt, he invited invasion; by its response, the coalition established the credibility of its resolve. There was no "intelligence hoax".

The New York Times
by free thinker
Oh the whole premise for this thread is faulty - as usual.

What gives is that Tanenhaus has mischaracterized Wolfowitz's remarks, that Vanity Fair's publicists have mischaracterized Tanenhaus's mischaracterization, and that Bush administration critics are now indulging in an orgy of righteous indignation that is dishonest in triplicate.

Pentagon staffers were wise enough to tape-record the Tanenhaus-Wolfowitz interview. Prior to publication of the Vanity Fair piece, they made that transcript available to its author. And they have since posted the transcript on the Defense Department's website (http://www.defenselink.mil). Tanenhaus's assertion that Wolfowitz ''admitted'' that ''Iraq's WMD had never been the most important casus belli'' turns out to be, not to put too fine a point on it, false. Here's the relevant section of the conversation:

TANENHAUS: Was that one of the arguments that was raised early on by you and others that Iraq actually does connect, not to connect the dots too much, but the relationship between Saudi Arabia, our troops being there, and bin Laden's rage about that, which he's built on so many years, also connects the World Trade Center attacks, that there's a logic of motive or something like that? Or does that read too much into--

WOLFOWITZ: No, I think it happens to be correct. The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but . . . there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. . . . The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his U.N. presentation.

In short, Wolfowitz made the perfectly sensible observation that more than just WMD was of concern, but that among several serious reasons for war, WMD was the issue about which there was widest domestic (and international) agreement.

http://www.chronwatch.com/editorial/contentDisplay.asp?aid=2928


by this thing here
... where are those WMD's you, mr. safire and mr. wolfowitz were talking about?
by free thinker
To those caught in a loop and choose to ignore the facts:

"And never mind the US's discovery of two mobile laboratories designed to produce biological and chemical agents capable of causing mass hysteria and death in any city in the world."

And how about this story...
Washington Post
Monday, June 2, 2003

The Bush administration says it has been told by an Iraqi scientist that Saddam Hussein in past years decentralized the chemical and biological weapons programs by putting production equipment within commercial facilities so that it would not be discovered but could be used when needed to produce deadly agents.

The scientist, in a May 7 White House document made available to The Washington Post, describes Iraq as having "carefully embedded its [weapons of mass destruction] infrastructure in dual-use facilities" with chemical weapons production "on demand" or "just in time."

The document noted that "facilities for making deadly nerve agents were also producing legitimate products like pesticides," but "such sites also could employ 'just in time' manufacturing and delivery systems to reduce the need for stockpiles." It said the Iraqi tractor-trailer seized in northern Iraq in April and outfitted with equipment that could be used to manufacture biological agents represented "physical evidence of such an approach."

Sad to have eyes and not see...

by this thing here
... so an iraqi scientist can SAY something, and that automatically makes it so.

so free thinker, where are those WMD's you keep talking about?

you keep saying they're there, so i figured you'd have them by now.

all i get is talk though. never evidence. just talk.
by free thinker
"Where are the WMD?" They knew where they were- they saw their families killed with them....

CHEERS FOR WOLFY

By STEPHEN SCHWARTZ
---------------------------------------------------------------------------May 31, 2003 -- LAST Sunday saw a remarka ble event in Washington - one that defied stereotypes about Muslims and the Bush administration's "hard-liners": Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, widely identified (and denounced) as the main architect of America's Iraq intervention, won multiple standing ovations from an audience of hundreds of Muslims
He praised the coalition's use of force to remove evil, and he hailed the new reality in Iraq. For the first time in 26 years, he said, Shia Muslims had freedom to observe their Arbaeen festival in Iraq. The room exploded in applause.

The venue: the first-ever national convention of Shia Muslims from the United States and Canada.

Wolfowitz is said to be the hardest of neoconservative hardliners. The Shias have a reputation as the most extreme, anti-Western, ultraradical Muslims. Yet they came together through the ideal of freedom, and the principle of liberation through the exercise of U.S. military power.

Pundits and experts have been wrong about both Wolfowitz and his Shia hosts.

Most of the media paint Wolfowitz as an arch-conspiratorial fanatic. Yet the truth, as anybody who has met with him quickly learns, is that he has an extensive and nuanced understanding of Islam. He served as U.S. ambassador to Indonesia for three years under President Ronald Reagan.

He is also a defender of democracy, taking pride in his key role in helping change the Philippines in the 1980s. He supported the removal of dictator Ferdinand Marcos and the triumph of democratic champion Corazon Aquino.

Shia Muslims, for their part, are typically described as extremists in the mold of Ayatollah Khomeini - dismissed with claims that all Shias everywhere support the Lebanese radicals of Hezbollah. The most recent dire prediction is that the Shia majority in Iraq will establish a rigid Islamic order.

But Shias are victims of mass murder in Pakistan, where followers of the Saudi-backed Wahhabi sect hunt and kill them relentlessly. When the Pakistani group Sipah-e-Sahaba (Order of the Prophet's Companions) murdered American reporter Daniel Pearl, he was their first victim who was not a Shia Muslim. Before him, the group had slain hundreds of innocents.

In addition, Shia Muslims, including a considerable community in the New York area, are better educated than many other Muslims. Their dedication to self-improvement often makes them a target.

In Saudi Arabia, where they are the majority in the oil-rich Eastern Province, they are also an economic elite. But within the Saudi kingdom, they still suffer extraordinary cruelties at the hands of the Wahhabis, who teach in Saudi schools that Shia Islam is the product of a Jewish conspiracy.

Life is tough for Shias, a minority of 200 million, or 15 percent of the world's Muslims. In America, where estimates of the total Muslim population vary from 2 million to 10 million, one in four is Shia. Most came here from Pakistan and Iraq to escape violence.

The Shia national convention in Washington, held by the Universal Muslim Association of America (UMAA) with 3,000 participants, represented a new trend in American Muslim life. Until now, the discourse on Islam in America was dominated, from the Muslim side, by the "Wahhabi lobby" - groups toeing the extremist line of the Saudi regime.

The "Wahhabi lobby" includes such entities as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). These groups have skewed discussion of Islam and Muslims in this country, by presenting America as an aggressive power internationally and as an enemy of Muslims.

Shia Muslims living in America see the world in very different terms. Agha Shaukat Jafri, a Shia community leader in New York and organizer of the UMAA convention, said, "We see America as our homeland and ourselves as American Muslims. We consider ourselves an integral part of its body politic. We condemn all forms of terrorism, and we consider these so-called Muslim fighters, who carry out terror, as enemies of our faith."

He described the reception for Wolfowitz as "very warm." He added: "We should thank the Bush administration for liberating the Shias of Iraq. I think Dr. Wolfowitz understands our viewpoint and our deep opposition to extremism. We were thrilled to have him attend and to hear his words."

Others, including non-Muslims, who attended the event were struck by the enthusiasm shown to Paul Wolfowitz. But Jafri put the emphasis in the right place: "The convention inaugurated a new period in the history of American Muslims, of heightened awareness of our responsibilities to the country we live in and hope for the future flourishing of Islam and democracy. At our convention next year, we would like to have President Bush as a guest."

And why did a story like this go unreported in the rest of our media?

Stephen Schwartz is author of "The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Sa'ud From Tradition to Terror," published by Doubleday, and director of the Islam and Democracy Program at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

by this thing here
guess what?

i don't dispute saddam's viciousness and lack of regard for human rights.

i don't dispute that saddam at one time possessed chemical weapons, and used them on the kurds. or the shia's.

but you say, and so does the u.s. government, that iraq, as there is no more saddam, POSSESSES weapons of mass destruction. you don't say possessed. to do so, you have to say that the war was because saddam possessed weapons in the past. i'm sorry, but i don't think that was the assertion of powell's efforts before the united nations, among many other examples of speeches arguing that war was the only solution for DISARMING iraq. "iraq is a threat NOW, iraq must be disarmed NOW". if you are disarming, then possession, in the present tense, needs to a reality.

the time now is approx. 2:30pm, monday, june 2, 2003. as of now, WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS?

it is NOT june 2, 1988. it is june 2, 2003.

you continue to claim that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction. and as long as you do, i am going to continue to demand proof. actual physical evidence.

you believe that somewhere in iraq, there are weapons of mass destruction. me? i don't believe in anything until the physical evidence is in front of me.

believing in something does not make it so.

claiming something does not make it so.

talking about something does not make it so.

the only way to make it so is to prove it with evidence.

everything else is irrelevant.


by free thinker
Hey, it's been all of two months since the regime fell and with the US in process of trying to establish a new government and maintain order in Iraq - even the most lunatic of ranting critics knows that it is grossly unreasonable to assume that that WMD should have been located in that short time period. Heck, the UN weapon inspectors didn't even get close in 13 YEARS while the regime played their hiding games - and had plenty of time to perfect them.

But we will find the truth. "As reassured Iraqi technicians and nurses come forward and as Baathist war criminals seek to save their skins, we will learn much more about Saddam's terrorist connections and his weaponry." Safire

It took seven years to catch the Olympic bombing suspect in North Carolina and 18 years to catch the Unabomber and that was in the US, without other countries assisting the criminal. The location & story behind WMD that Iraq had won't remain a mystery forever.

Feel free to continue your rant, hope you can keep it up for a long time.
by this thing here
i'll wait for the proof as long as it takes.
by Angie
There was no mention of waiting in the months leading up to the terrorist attack on Iraq. We were told they were there, that Hussein was quite capable of launching an attack in 45 minutes.

I mean, PLEASE!!!

We are not talking capturing bombers here. We are talking about invading a country. There is no comparison.

If any are found, no one will believe it because we will all know they've been planted.
by this thing here
>Bush built his case for justifying war with Iraq on the premise of WMD's.<

yes. he did. he used it to build up the threat, for which he sold the solution. of war. and war was the "only" solution.

regardless of all the other rationalizations for war, IF, IF the WMD one is faulty, it is faulty.

regardless of all the other rationalizations for war, they do not absolve the bush administration of blame for using a faulty premise. they do not write off the blame. they do not excuse manipulating and misleading the public to buy into an idea that led to the deaths of some 150 americans and thousands of iraqi's. that will cost tens of billions of dollars.

it was the bush adminstration's CHOICE to use whatever premises they wanted to use. wolfowitz himself says WMD's were "chosen", were "agreed upon". sorry, but this is not a ticket out of jail.

by THE IRAQIS SPEAK ABOUT US!
BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 2 (UPI) -- It is dusk in Baghdad and I am talking to the regular group of men who gather near the house I am staying in to talk about the day's events.

"What do you think about the Americans? How long do you think they should stay? Are they doing a good job?" I ask.

The answer is very complicated while at the same time very, very simple. It is the "politically correct" thing to do to complain about the Americans, say they are not wanted and tell them to "go home."

The reality, though, is very different.

As usually happens throughout Iraq, people look around before they tell their true feelings. Simply put they are still afraid to speak the truth. Before it was Saddam, now it is the Shiites and others who frighten them.

"The Americans are doing wonderfully. We want them to stay forever," I hear.

I am not surprised. It is exactly like I thought. When I was in Iraq before the war, the reported feelings were that while the people of Iraq did not like Saddam, they would fight for their country and were against the war.

As I said then, the people wanted the war to come so they could be liberated from Saddam but were not free to talk. The same situation with a different twist exists today.

It is not widely reported, nor fashionable to say the Americans are loved and wanted in Iraq, but in fact as they were wanted before the war, they are wanted now.

"We hope they stay forever" is the true feeling of the silent majority in Iraq, contrary to what is reported.

The logic is very simple -- the Iraqis do not trust their leaders. Faced with a very complicated situation of a 60 percent Shiite majority, a former police state, Iran at their doorstep trying with all its might to destabilize

their country, and desperately relieved and happy to be finally liberated from nearly 30 years of Saddam, they want the United States to stay.

The greatest fear of the man on the street is that the Americans will tire and leave. "We pray that they stay and stay forever" is the feeling of the vast majority, but they look both ways before they say it.

Why? The answer is quite simple. The following is the translation of a letter being given out throughout Iraq in various forms.

"'In the name of God the most merciful and compassionate'

"Do not adorn yourselves as illiterate women before Islam (From the Koran)

to this noble family,

We hope that the family will stand with brothers of Islam and follow the basic Islamic rules of wearing the veil and possessing honorable teachings of Islam that the Muslims have continued to follow from old times.

We are the Iraqi people, the Muslim people and do not accept any mistakes.

If not, and this message will be final, we will take the following actions:

1. Doing what one cannot endure (believed to be rape)

2. Killing

3. Kidnapping

4. Burning the house with its dwellers in it or exploding it.

This message is directed to the women of this family.

Signed."

This message from a Shiite Islamic organization says it all and explains in a nutshell why, though finally liberated, the Iraqi people still live in fear.

They are not in fear from the crime and looting that is reported in the press. Of course, it troubles them that the electricity is not up and running properly yet, garbage is still scattered and the schools are not yet functioning, but these are all items that the Americans are working to fix. It will take time, but they will be ultimately solved.

An interesting discussion followed one of the daily meetings we attended with U.S. authorities to coordinate activities. Following a long litany of things that do not work and a regular complaining, one Iraqi at the table spoke up: "I think many of those did not work properly even before the war."

Suddenly there was silence at the table as the reality of his statement sunk in.

The much reported anger of the Iraqis at the slowness of bringing Iraq up to speed is much exaggerated. Of course, people are frustrated -- I am too when the electricity suddenly goes off, the water is sporadic, or garbage sits in the street.

At the same time, we just got through a war! Standing in front of the Palestine Hotel watching a large group of Shiite Muslims complaining, I asked a simple question: "Could you hold a demonstration like this before the war?" There was a stunned silence and then a sheepish grin.

"No."

What people truly fear is the takeover of their finally liberated country by a group of what they term simply "crazy" people. When fellow Muslims call them "crazy" and they send letters like the above -- a similar one that came to one of our bishops a few days ago -- one begins to understand their true fear.

If there is one mistake being made by the Americans on the ground, it is that they are just too "soft" on the "bad guys."

In the desire not to offend, the Americans in the view of the silent majority have been too soft on the "crazies." If there was one single event that put fear in the hearts of the regular people, it was when one crossed the border into Iraq. A man that even Saddam Hussein would not let into Iraq for 23 years -- the leader of the Shiite Muslims who had been living in Iran as an exile, Ayatollah Mohammad Bakr Al Hakim.

Upon returning to Iraq, he promptly called for the creation of an Islamic state, similar to Iran.

What can the United States do?

As one who was born and raised in Japan -- a mirror of what is happening in Iraq took place 58 years ago -- I for one feel Japan's example can be a "road map" for the future of Iraq.

My parents were among the thousands that responded to Gen. Douglas MacArthur's call for 10,000 young people to help rebuild Japan following the war.

They came with many others who gave their lives to see a war-mongering, pseudo-religious police state transformed into the economic powerhouse and leader for good in the world that Japan -- for all its many problems -- is today.

Just like Iraq, immediately following its surrender, there were the voices calling for more consideration for Japan's "culture" and leaving the basic institutions in place.

Instead, strong accountability was put in place, war criminals punished and executed, pre-war institutions that had created the war machine eliminated, and a strong constitution put in place, which included a watertight prohibition against any religious involvement by the state. This small but critical U.S. presence 58 years following the war remains.

Why? As any Japanese will tell you, quietly because it is still "politically incorrect," they want the Americans to stay.

As Iraqis told me before the war, "we are not afraid of the Americans' bombing. There will be mistakes. People will be killed, but we do not believe the Americans will ever purposely bomb us." People when they are free to tell their true feelings inherently trust America.

They will all bring up the myriad of other interests they feel the United States has in its cards -- oil, control of the world, and on and on -- but at the end of the day they want America to stay involved and fear most of all that the American people will grow tired and leave them to the "crazies."

What can we do to ensure that Iraq will go on to become another "Japan" and be a leader for good in the Middle East?

The answers come from the common people. I will never forget discussing with many of the peace activists I originally supported before the war, asking whether they had talked with the common people to ask what they wanted. "No, we don't have to. We know what they want," was the response.

What do the "regular people" in Iraq want? Just like they wanted the Americans to save them from Saddam and were ready to pay any price personally to do so, their advice is simple and we ignore it at a price.

First, don't be soft on the Shiites! Don't listen to all the voices saying be "culturally sensitive." People who say if you don't believe like we do, we will rape, kill, kidnap or burn down your house, do not deserve to be talked with. As the "regular people" say, "they are crazy and cannot be talked with."

An important first step? Send Ayatollah Mohammed Bakr Hakim back to Iran, where he spent his exile torturing Iraqis in Iranian prisons.

"Cut out the cancer that will destroy our country" is the feeling on the street.

Second, immediately stop the daily cacophony of speakers that blare from mosques across the country. This is not an issue of respecting religious institutions. The use of massive speakers to blare out "calls to prayer" is a recent phenomenon.

According to the "regular people," one of the best things the British troops did in 1991 in the areas they controlled was to visit with each mosque and tell the imam that there was complete religious freedom. They told him he could do whatever he wanted, but the blaring of speakers all day long and into the night was not religious but political and was banned, as has been done in many other Islamic countries.

Even neighboring Jordan has banned all such blaring speakers except for one in Amman.

This one move immediately changed the atmosphere for the "regular people" and sent a strong message that there was a future and the British at that time meant business about a secular Iraq with freedom and opportunity for all.

There will be cries to be "culturally sensitive" on this issue but the constant blaring is a constant political statement that says there is no equality. It is the simplest but most single important step that can be taken to give Iraqis hope that things will be different in the future.

In addition, the Islamic headdress, which we saw battled in Afghanistan and is now an issue on the ground in Iraq, should be banned. Many other Islamic nations have come to the simple conclusion that given the example of the letter sent out and the reality of the weakness of the position of women, there is no situation in which a woman can be thought to be in a position to freely choose to wear the veil, covering of the head or the full body covering.

The only solution is to ban it completely so it does not become an issue and used by the "crazies" to impose their values by intimidating the weakest of the population -- the women.

Third, begin immediate 24-hour television in Arabic, Kurdish and Assyrian -- the principle languages of Iraq. It is unbelievable that to date, it is not up and running while neighboring Iran continues to blare unbelievable messages into Iraq.

The "regular people" are confused and upset not at what they see -- in each of the regular homes I have stayed in, the Americans tanks drive by patrolling the streets at least three or four times each night -- it's what they do not see.

What is most needed on the ground is information. In the absence of it, the "crazies" get the edge. Television, newspapers and radio with information on the progress of reconstruction, information on daily needs and encouragement for the future are necessities.

Fourth, don't be so overly sensitive to Islamic issues. It will be the "death knell" to success in Iraq. As was done in Japan, the "cancer" needs to be rooted out. Virtually all the "crazy" positions that are imposed are not in the Koran and have nothing to do with Islam.

The American position should be to respect the Koran as a religious book and respect Islam as a religion, but to never tolerate anything done in the name of either that defies the moral principles of international society.

"There shall not be compulsion in religion," states the Holy Koran; Part 3 Surah 2 al-Baqarah 256 Page 68.

The Americans shall strenuously support freedom of religion and the freedom to openly propagate any religion, but will never tolerate any form of intimidation or even implicit state support for any one religion. It was this singular issue that guaranteed the success of postwar Japan.

Fifth, create a secular, non-religious constitution for Iraq. I do not mean ask the Iraqis to do it -- after 30 years of intimidation and living in a police state, they are psychologically incapable at this time of doing it

themselves. Exactly as in postwar Japan, we need the best and the brightest minds of Americans and Iraqis together to do this. The best tool at this time is the 1925 Iraqi constitution with the religious articles taken from the Japanese constitution.

This is critical. On this one issue, our Iraq will fail or succeed. Don't listen to the voices again about being "culturally sensitive." The United States faces a simple and stark problem -- there is no "Islamic" nation anywhere that constitutionally guarantees equal rights. Check it out.

One will be shocked, as I was to read constitution after constitution and find out that one is not allowed by either constitution or law to leave Islam. This allows a situation to be created where the most important human right -- the right to freedom of thought -- is not allowed in any Islamic country by virtue of the fact that individuals are not allowed to legally leave the "religion" they were born into, nor allowed to specify "nothing" when asked about their religious belief.

This is where Japan succeeded -- the Americans were vicious in their complete elimination of any religious test or favoritism in the Constitution and subsequent laws.

Sixth, create representative government. Don't do this in long, tedious consultations. This needs to, as in Japan's case, be imposed with consultation.

Special provisions must be made to include special rights for special people who during Saddam's time were purposely spread thinly across the country to make sure they would never be strong enough in any one area to be able to affect representation.

The Assyrians, the indigenous people of Iraq -- the "Native Americans" if you will of Iraq along with the Kurds and the Turkomans -- need to have special autonomy in their homelands so they will feel they have a future and stay to build Iraq, and exiles by the millions living abroad will see a future to return.

Along with this representative government giving special rights to indigenous people in their homelands, there must be a careful and complete settlement of all outstanding claims for land. This was one of the other major areas that caused postwar Japan to succeed -- the Americans were vigorous in breaking up the illegal land situations that had developed over the years. This situation is mirrored in Iraq.

Land must be returned completely to all those who had their land taken by Saddam so individual Iraqis will have their own land and "own" a future. There must never be any perception that Saddam's "friends," as those who assisted in the nightmare that was Japan before and during World War II, continue to benefit.

The elimination of the speakers at the mosques will show Iraqis on a practical level that the United States is creating an equal playing field for all Iraqis.

Finally, get telephones for the U.S. military and ORHA offices in Baghdad. For those of us who interact with them, it borders on the absurd. Imagine a whole "government in waiting" that cannot communicate across the few feet of various agency offices.

This touches a greater issue -- let's not think we can set up an Iraq on the "cheap."

Will it be expensive? Of course, it will. Is it worth it? Yes it is. Iraq is a rich country. It has more than enough resources without using any of the U.S. taxpayer's money. We must not forget that it took seven years of post-war occupation in Japan to root out all the "bad guys" and set up a new government.

Will it pay off? Has Japan "paid off"? It is a simple but critical question -- do we want another "Japan" or do we want another "Iran?"

It is my prayer that the United States will have the courage to stay the course -- it may take seven years of direct occupation and decades of limited basing but it will be well worth it.

Now is the time to be strong, forceful and remember the lessons of the past. Japan is our greatest example. As one who was born and raised in Japan, I grew up regularly having someone out of nowhere shake my hand and say "thank you for Gen. Douglas MacArthur and for what you did to Japan after the war."

It brought back memories as I stood with our neighbors on a dusty Baghdad street at dusk and heard them reply to my question of how long should America stay in Iraq.

"We hope the Americans will stay in Iraq forever!"
by this thing here
'G.I.'s in a Desert Town Face Rising Iraqi Hostility'

By PATRICK E. TYLER


'IT, Iraq, May 29 — Capt. Andrew Watson of Carson City, Nev., removed his helmet and mopped the sweat off his head this afternoon as he stood at the gate of his dusty encampment and puzzled over what had prompted the rioting, grenade throwing and arson on Wednesday in this little desert town that falls within his "A.O.," or area of operations.

Advertisement


"We have taken great pains to be aware of cultural differences," he said. "We do not want to be ugly Americans. We are here to be a friend."

But the challenges now facing the American occupation of Iraq exploded here this week when a rocket-propelled grenade was fired at one of Captain Watson's convoys on Tuesday in this desert speck of a town 90 miles northwest of Baghdad.

Soldiers of the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment responded by bringing local policemen into one of Hit's neighborhoods and conducting house-to-house searches, according to residents and military officials.

The residents say the soldiers kicked down doors and climbed over walls at other homes while an assault helicopter circled above the neighborhood.

Word spread like a prairie fire across the city that American soldiers had burst in on the Muslim women of Hit, catching them in various states of immodest cover.

"We are Muslims, and we don't allow people to trespass on our property and go into our houses and search our women," one angry resident said today. He would identify himself only as Abu Ahmed, age 37.

In this way, it seems, the earnest American quest to be sensitive to cultural differences can quickly turn to misunderstanding and violence in a country still nervous and restive after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

On Wednesday, American soldiers returned to the police station to talk with the local authorities about security. A crowd gathered and pelted the station with stones. Then someone threw a hand grenade over the wall of the police compound. Two soldiers suffered minor wounds, and reinforcements raced to the scene.

"The citizens didn't accept the behavior of the Americans," an elderly resident in a white robe said in unaccented English that he learned while a student at a technical institute in St. Louis in the 1960's.

The crowd grew. The soldiers formed a cordon with their guns aimed outward as they evacuated their wounded, witnesses said. Warning shots rang out. One local man said he had been shot through the leg. When the troops retreated, the crowded rioted for hours, burning the municipal building and the police station in protest at what was viewed as the "collaboration" of the police.

It was one of a series of attacks this week in which six American soldiers were killed and a dozen wounded, most in central Iraq.

The violence has underscored the challenges American troops face as they take over many of the functions of a national police force in Iraq. The injuries in Hit were minor compared with other attacks this week.

But confrontations like the one in Hit could multiply as allied forces begin enforcing a tough gun-collection program after June 1.

Until this week, the war had passed over this industrial town. There was no bombing here during the military campaign and no looting afterward, the town elders say.

Many men threw their weapons into the blue waters of the Euphrates River three weeks ago and welcomed the Americans who finally showed up promising the return of economic life.

But today, the municipal building and the police station are smoldering wrecks. A vigilante with an AK-47 stood guard as if to tell the Americans that they are in for a fight if they return.

After attacks on convoys that killed five Americans this week, a sixth soldier was killed today, military officials said, when "hostile fire" was directed at a convoy on the main supply route from Kuwait near the town of Anaconda. The unidentified soldier was pronounced dead at the 21st Combat Support Hospital, a military statement said.

Late Wednesday, American troops opened fire on an Iraqi civilian vehicle in Samarra, killing two people and wounding two others. Military officials said the vehicle had failed to stop at a roadblock.


While the level of alarm over convoy attacks was rising, American officials acknowledged today that they had mistakenly released from a military internment camp a suspected mass murderer believed to be responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqi Shiites in 1991.

The suspect, Muhammad Jawad an-Neifus, was released on May 18 from the Bucca internment facility at Umm Qasr, officials said. He has been accused of helping the Iraqi Army kill thousands of people during Mr. Hussein's repression of a Shiite rebellion in southern Iraq at the end of the Persian Gulf war in 1991.

Known as Sheik an-Neifus by the residents of Hilla, the site of one of the largest mass graves discovered so far, he was arrested by marines on April 26 and then turned over to the Army military police on April 29, the statement said.

"When he appeared for his initial screening, there was nothing unusual about the story he told," the statement added, indicating that his "true identity" was not known then. "Therefore, he was cleared for release."

American military officials said tonight that they were "solely responsible for his erroneous release and are conducting a thorough investigation to ensure no further recurrences." A $25,000 reward was offered for information leading to his capture.

Mr. Neifus lived in a compound near Hilla. On Wednesday, American soldiers and policemen went to the house and arrested two of his grandsons. Other relatives in the house said all the accusations against the family — that it helped Mr. Hussein's henchmen kill men, women and children in 1991 — were false.

The complexity of postwar Iraq has led American forces into law enforcement tasks for which they are not well prepared. They are still searching for Mr. Hussein and his key officials. They are fighting hardened criminals freed from prison by an amnesty granted by Mr. Hussein late last year.

For many Iraqis, the shifting role of American troops has been a shock. Just eight weeks ago, they were rolling across the country passing out candy to children. Now they are kicking in doors and blocking traffic to seize the weapons that most Iraqis have for home defense.

In Hit, the change of perception about the American presence is palpable. "Having the Americans standing in the streets really provokes the people," said Qusay Yusef, a carpenter with four children.

For now, the Americans have withdrawn. Captain Watson said that the patrols and roadblocks would continue, but that his troops would still be "at pains" not to appear as "ugly Americans."'

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/30/international/worldspecial/30IRAQ.html
by Hah.
Yep, a bastion of journalistic integrity... Wonder if the reporter was even in Iraq, or he made it up like Mr. Blair did?

"Take the Jayson Blair fiasco. At a meeting with Times staffers, executive editor Howell Raines said: "[Y]ou have a right to ask if I, as a white man from Alabama… gave him [Blair] one chance too many… When I look into my heart for the truth of that the answer is yes." Raines's admission — that he let his personal guilt over having being born a southerner override his stewardship of the nation's premier newspaper — shows just how deep these feelings run.

But such guilt-trips aren't just affecting the Times internally; they're having a direct impact on American institutions and businesses. At the same meeting, Raines told his staff: "Fear is a problem to the extent, I was told, that editors are scared to bring me bad news."

Or news that doesn't fit.


by side of things
and ignore anything positive.

Soldier saves kids from prison? Ignore it.

Soldier kicks rock, child two hours later stumbles over it and skins knee? ATROCITY! FRONT PAGE NEWS!

But then - it's not about 'fairness' in journalism here, is it? You've got an agenda, and you'll discount anything that doesn't fit it.
by this thing here
... nor did i claim anywhere, that the new york times article is "the only possible" side of things.

come to think of it, reading both articles would give the best picture.

because, in reality, it is more complicated. which is to say, there is good and bad.

as for me having an agenda, look no further than your own agenda. and i don't even think "agenda" is the right word. i would use "point of view", and there is nothing wrong with having a point of view regarding iraq.

besides, this thread is about wolfowitz, and the use of the threat of WMD's as a reason for war, not about the extent to which iraqi's praise or hate america.
by free thinker
I just don't get some of you here.

You freely admit, yes - Hussein had WMD, and yes, he used them on his own people and the countries he attacked. He refused to follow UN sanctions regarding WMD, played hide&seek with the UN weapon inspectors for 13 years, all well documented.

You admit that the Hussein regime was known to torture and murder MILLIONS of his people. The full horror of this regime is slowly coming to light, like the numerous mass graves that are uncovered daily.

Hussein also was known for his hatred of the US, especially after his humiliating defeat of his invasion into Kuwait in 1991, and his ties to terrorism were confirmed over and over.

So what is the problem that some of you have with the actions of US and its allies to stand up to this tyrant and end the nightmare? I really don't think the quibbling about what happened to the WMD is the real issue. My guess is it really pisses some of you off that the IRAQIS are thrilled to be free of this Hitler, and the US pulled it off with minimal loss - contrary to the hysterical rantings that predicted all sorts of bad ramifications.

Why don't you listen to the Iraqi people?
"We Iraqis seem to have very short memories, or we simply block the bad times out. I ask them how long it took for us to get the electricity back again after he last war? 2 years until things got to what they are now, after 2 months of war. I ask them how was the water? Bad. Gas for car? None existent. Work? Lots of sitting in street tea shops. And how did everything get back? Hussain Kamel used to literally beat and whip people to do the impossible task of rebuilding. Then the question that would shut them up, so, dear Mr. Taxi driver would you like to have your saddam back? Aren’t we just really glad that we can now at least have hope for a new Iraq? Or are we Iraqis just a bunch of impatient fools who do nothing better than grumble and whine? Patience, you have waited for 35 years for days like these so get to working instead of whining. End of conversation.

The truth is, if it weren’t for intervention this would never have happened. When we were watching the Saddam statue being pulled down, one of my aunts was saying that she never thought she would see this day during her lifetime."

http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/

Besides, many of you like Angie (the brillant thinker who proclaimed the US nuked Vietnam) have already proclaimed any WMD found will be suspected of being planted. Ah, such open minds here!


by Angie
That I was told by anyone and everyone that the US used nuclear weapons in Viet Nam. I also added if this were not correct, to advise, which someone did. .

Whether there were nuclear weapons or not is immaterial to the death and destruction caused by yet another unjustified war, but I suppose "free thinkers" like yourself feel that Viet Nam, as well as Iraq, was justified. To each his own and all that.
by this thing here
... it is wrong to argue for a war by using the threat of WMD's that don't exist.

it is wrong to manipulate people to agree with you by scaring them with WMD's that don't exist.

it is wrong to argue, "if we don't disarm iraq, then we will end up with millions of dead americans, mushroom clouds, nerve agents, and smallpox outbreaks. and the only way we can disarm iraq is to go to war." why is it wrong to argue that? because it is wrong to argue that if you can't find the very weapons that are THE central part of your argument. it cheapens the lives of 150 american soldiers, and thousands of iraqi's.

it is wrong to hold over the heads of the entire nation and the world these kind of threats, manipulate support for a war based on the threat of these threats, go to war based on these threats, and then, after the war, when you can't find evidence of these threats, try and change the subject and say the war was about something else.

as long as i'm here, nobody is going to get away with that kind of bullshit.

and on a personal level, what makes me particularly angry, very angry in fact, is people who attacked me for not supporting the war, who attacked me for "putting america at risk" of saddam's WMD's because i did not support the war, suddenly saying after the war that WMD's aren't the real issue.

no. FUCK THAT. i am not going to let anyone get away with that one.

and if the real issue was simply saddam hussein's viscious treatment of his own people, and NOT WMD's, then why oh why did the bush admin. even bring up WMD's?

and if the real reason for going to war was to liberate iraq, and NOT to disarm iraq, then why oh why did the bush admin. even bring up WMD's.

and if the real reason for going to war was because iraq had chemical weapons IN THE PAST, and used chemical weapons IN THE PAST, why oh why DIDN'T the bush admin. say they were launching operation iraqi freedom to avenge the halabja massacre of 1988, and not to protect us in 2003?

and frankly, saying that all america wanted to do is liberate the iraqi people is also total bullshit. why can i say that? because if america really gave a good god damn about human rights, about liberty and justice for all, about freedom, about ending human suffering, if it really applied consistent principles of freedom on a consistent basis, then america would have invaded iran, libya, syria, pakistan, china, north korea, burma, zimbabwe, sudan, chad and god knows who else. but it hasn't. which means there is something very, very special about iraq, that america would go through all the trouble and all the expense to invade it, and liberate it, when there are many other people's on this earth who are also suffering. and what makes iraq so goddamn special, i would love to know.

WMD's are still an issue. they are an issue if they exist, and they are an issue if they don't exist. my purpose here is to not let anyone change the subject, and weasel out of their obligations to find the weapons they claimed existed. regardless of all the other "reasons" they trot out to justify the war.
by free thinker
>>That I was told by anyone and everyone that the US used nuclear weapons in Viet Nam. I also added if this were not correct, to advise, which someone did. .

Who is everyone?? And how many did you spread this vicious lie to?? Did you correct this??

>>Whether there were nuclear weapons or not is immaterial to the death and destruction caused by yet another unjustified war,

Okay - that statement alone shows your warped thinking...do you have any idea of how many deaths a nuclear weapon can cause, especially in the hands of one as such as Hussein - who freely gassed populations? Or what if he turns those weapons over to al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations?? Talk about a hundred 9/11s!

And war could have been prevented, if Hussein complied with UN sanctions, or stepped down. Hold Hussein accountable for his actions.

>> but I suppose "free thinkers" like yourself feel that Viet Nam, as well as Iraq, was justified. To each his own and all that.

I only mentioned Vietnam as an example of your questionable thinking and motives - like when you proclaimed that the US nuked Vietnam. What makes you think you have any clue as to my feelings about Vietnam? Did anyone and everyone tell you this?

by the real Angie
You have a damn nerve accusing me of having a closed mind when yours is as tight as the proverbial drum.

And with you putting words in my mouth and then shouting at me because I questioned the justification of war in Viet Nam or Iraq.

I wasn't even born during the Viet Nam war, nor have I spent any time dwelling on it. I merely stated what I had been told. As if you have never done so, I suppose. Perhaps some day I shall study it in depth, or perhaps not. It sure as hell won't be from anything on this board.

The US certainly used weapons of mass destruction in Viet Nam. Unless, of course, the much publized Agent Orange is just some little falsification too?

Quite frankly, I never purported to know your feelings. You flatter yourself that I'd be interested. You come on this board making a snide remark about me, acting as if you know everything, which, of course, you don't. Nor does anyone.

When I respond, you behave like a raving maniac. Get a grip. This is not my damn problem. It's the problem of the US administration and the UK administration who said there were WMD in Iraq.

BUT I'm not the one that has them. I am not the one that said they were in Iraq. I am not the one that committed a terrorist attack on a soverign nation because of alleged WMD.

So if you got a problem with the fact that none have been found in Iraq, timed to attack the US or UK at a 45 minute notice, fine. Take it up with Bush et al, not me.

The damage has already been done to a country and a people that could have been averted by diplomacy, but then there wouldn't be huge contracts to line the pockets of the pals of the current administration.
by free thinker
>>You have a damn nerve accusing me of having a closed mind when yours is as tight as the proverbial drum.

Ah - Angie, you are the one who proclaimed US nuked Vietnam, because of your lazy thinking: "That I was told by anyone and everyone that the US used nuclear weapons in Viet Nam" Now why would anyone say such a stupid, untrue thing? Maybe because it was a convienent way to show how HORRID those nasty Yanks are (the same ones that saved UK's ass 60 years ago - but why would you want to look up your history - you have more convienent ways to get your "information" - eh)? Besides, if you have a CLOSED MIND - it just fits so nicely with your agenda, now doesn't it?


>>And with you putting words in my mouth

Hardy. You are very good at putting your own foot in your own mouth - I just cut and paste.

>>I wasn't even born during the Viet Nam war, nor have I spent any time dwelling on it.

Your youth and lack of knowledge is evident.

>>I merely stated what I had been told.

And your lack of questioning is evident of your closed mind. Good little protester girl!

>>As if you have never done so, I suppose. Perhaps some day I shall study it in depth, or perhaps not. It sure as hell won't be from anything on this board.

A darn shame about your closed mind. I sure have learned ALOT on this board...especially about anarchists / communists.

>>The US certainly used weapons of mass destruction in Viet Nam. Unless, of course, the much publized Agent Orange is just some little falsification too?

Nope - that part is well documented.

>>Quite frankly, I never purported to know your feelings. You flatter yourself that I'd be interested.

Again - your words cut and pasted - "I suppose "free thinkers" like yourself feel that Viet Nam, as well as Iraq, was justified." Do you read your own posts? That read to me that you knew my feelings; Madam Zorba.

>>You come on this board making a snide remark about me, acting as if you know everything, which, of course, you don't. Nor does anyone.

Truth and direct quotes hurt, little girl. And no, I don't know everything. I don't even know why I am wasting my time answering you. You have a very closed mind:
"If any are found, no one will believe it because we will all know they've been planted. " Your words.

>>When I respond, you behave like a raving maniac. Get a grip.

??? You seem to be the one who has trouble with her own words...I just am holding them back up to you.

>> This is not my damn problem. It's the problem of the US administration and the UK administration who said there were WMD in Iraq.

Actually it is your problem. Read bin Laden's jihad.

>>BUT I'm not the one that has them.
Good - one less to worry about...

>>I am not the one that said they were in Iraq. I am not the one that committed a terrorist attack on a soverign nation because of alleged WMD.

Mouthing the party line, eh little girl. Did you talk to any Iraqis?

>>So if you got a problem with the fact that none have been found in Iraq, timed to attack the US or UK at a 45 minute notice, fine. Take it up with Bush et al, not me.

Nope - I have patience. Guess that comes with age and knowledge.

>>The damage has already been done to a country and a people that could have been averted by diplomacy,

Talk to Hussein - he didn't comply with UN sanctions & didn't flee within the 48 hours.

>>but then there wouldn't be huge contracts to line the pockets of the pals of the current administration.

Actually, those contracts have been diminshed because the war was a hellva lot quicker and cleaner than predicted. But France, Germany & Russia are now sweating ...worring about the status of THEIR BILLION dollar contracts with the Hussein regime. But you wouldn't know about that, would you little girl?
by the real Angie
Little girl? Hardly!

That's it from me to you. Carry on. Do whatever. Think whatever if you know how.
by Who doesn't want to learn...
Nukes in 'Nam?

"Before my time!"

What ELSE do you believe with all your heart that isn't so?

What ELSE have people you 'trust' told you that is false, that you didn't bother to question?
by ANGEL
Where are the WMD?????
FOR COMPLETE DETAILS:
CLICK HERE > http://www.msnbc.com/news/wld/graphics/strategic_israel_dw.htm
Want Peace in the MIDDLE EAST???
Free the Palestinian People from Occupation and Oppression:
CLICK HERE > http://dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=64554&group=webcast
by !!
this is complete waste of time.
you are not going to change a thing.
while you sit typing at the computer the evil doers are doing just the same
your rhetoric is meaningless to the movers & shakers, unless you can prove your rhetoric with meaningful actions.
actions speak louder than words, so by all means Continue YAPPIN'
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$110.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network